How to choose between creation and evolution.

[xianghua]

What you showed a picture of IS a watch, since it shows obviously manufactured parts: leather, plastic, metal, radium.
What you are suggesting would not be a watch. It would be LIKE a watch, but it wouldn't BE a watch.

so if it will made only from wood you will not call it a watch?

 

[xianghua]

Yes, and if there was any evidence that specifically indicated a designer or that the designer actually exists, then it would be sensible to consider that hypothesis? Do you have any?

so why you gave this paper as evidence for evolution? if we assume a common designer then the paper is meaningless (its a ctually begging the question). as for evidence for design: i already gave here a spinning motor like the flagellum. do you agree that a spinning motor is evidence for design or not?

 

[xianghua]

What's happened is that evolution has put in a 'fix', but the theoretical capability of a better eye design is ... better.

since you have not made any better eye so far (nor anyone else on planet) you cant realy show how it can be better.

That the human eye compensates for design flaws does not stop those flaws being flaws in the first place. The complexities of the human eye – from the blind spot and macula to focused and peripheral vision | ZEISS United Kingdom

since that "backwards" retina actually improve vision, its not realy a flaw but a design trait. as newscientists admit:

"IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision"


so any claim about "bad design" is bad by itself.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you agree that a spinning motor is evidence for design or not?

No, a "spinning motor" is not evidence of design. Only a spinning motor which shows evidence of manufacture is evidence of design.

A spinning motor is not evidence of design. A manufactured spinning motor is evidence of design.

I don't know why you keep asking this same question over and over. Do you think you will someday get a different answer?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

so if it will made only from wood you will not call it a watch?

I'll repeat the last sentence of the post you replied to: What you are suggesting would not be a watch. It would be LIKE a watch, but it wouldn't BE a watch.

 

[rjs330]

Take a closer look at the series of skulls you declared as "human".

Well made an assumption that he was showing a series of skulls that were supposed to show a transition from ancient man to modern man.

If there were monkey skulls in there then I'm afraid he failed to show transition from monkey to man if that was his point. There are no transitional fossils.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well made an assumption that he was showing a series of skulls that were supposed to show a transition from ancient man to modern man.

If there were monkey skulls in there then I'm afraid he failed to show transition from monkey to man if that was his point. There are no transitional fossils.

An argument from ignorance is no argument at all. It just shows your own ignorance.

 

[pitabread]

Well made an assumption that he was showing a series of skulls that were supposed to show a transition from ancient man to modern man.

Well you know what they say about assumptions. It just made an ass out of you and umption.

If there were monkey skulls in there then I'm afraid he failed to show transition from monkey to man if that was his point.

What do you mean "if"? One of those skulls was a chimp skull (and pretty obvious at that). The fact you didn't do anything more than glance at the image before declaring all those skulls as "human" invalidates anything you say about their origin.

It also doesn't address the issue that other creationists are also completely divided about their respective origins with little to no consensus.

There are no transitional fossils.

Transitional fossils are by definition fossils that have intermediary characteristics between multiple taxa. These fossils exist and are real, physical objects. By claiming "are no transitional fossils", you are denying the physical existence of those fossils.

 

[rjs330]

Are you referring to evolution in general or to human evolution? You are going to have to be more specific than just "one creature into something else." Take, for example, the series from eohippus to the modern horse, which is reasonably complete. Does that constitute transition from "one kind of creature into somthing else?"

I have said, a lot actually, that I do believe creatures evolve in order to adapt or survive. The pepper moth is an example or the Finch whos wings change to perform better flight for long distances. I am talking about creatures evolving into something it wasn't in the first place. If you break living things into groups or families then you can have adaptations within those families. Such as a the dog family or group. But they have always belonged to the dogs. They didn't come from the same ancestor the cat or monkey came from.

The horse family is another issue. The evolution of the horse has been touted as the great transitional fossils. However it is very convoluted and contains so many branches it's hard to put much stock into it. In fact some of the problems are they have found newer fossils in the same strata as older ones. They have divided the branches into different kinds and taken it back to the beginning and have ended up with several different ancestors. It's really kind of a mess. Not conclusive at all, unless of course you make assumptions. Which is really what has happened.
https://creation.com/the-evolution-of-the-horse

 

[rjs330]

An argument from ignorance is no argument at all. It just shows your own ignorance.

Actually in this case it's not, because he made a claim the fossils were evidence of transition. They are are not they are just fossils. He was claiming they showed evolutionary transition.

There is a difference between ignorance and misundertanding. If you can't see that then I can't help you.

By the way, were there monkey skulls in that?
Which ones were claimed to be monkey and which were claimed to be human? All that the picture shows is a bunch of skulls with a letter beside them. It doesn't show transition at all.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually in this case it's not, because he made a claim the fossils were evidence of transition. They are are not they are just fossils. He was claiming they showed evolutionary transition.

Who are you talking about?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually in this case it's not, because he made a claim the fossils were evidence of transition. They are are not they are just fossils. He was claiming they showed evolutionary transition.

There is a difference between ignorance and misundertanding. If you can't see that then I can't help you.

By the way, were there monkey skulls in that?
Which ones were claimed to be monkey and which were claimed to be human? All that the picture shows is a bunch of skulls with a letter beside them. It doesn't show transition at all.

Actually, in this case and in all of the cases where you claim there are no transitional fossils, you are very much mistaken. You are fully guilty of ignoring the evidence presented to you.

 

[rjs330]

Well you know what they say about assumptions. It just made an ass out of you and umption.



What do you mean "if"? One of those skulls was a chimp skull (and pretty obvious at that). The fact you didn't do anything more than glance at the image before declaring all those skulls as "human" invalidates anything you say about their origin.

It also doesn't address the issue that other creationists are also completely divided about their respective origins with little to no consensus.



Transitional fossils are by definition fossils that have intermediary characteristics between multiple taxa. These fossils exist and are real, physical objects. By claiming "are no transitional fossils", you are denying the physical existence of those fossils.

Hmm... Youre right about assumptions. I did assume. But that's kinda like the pot calling the kettle black since that's what evolution is, which is nothing but a bunch of assumptions.

So please take that picture of the skulls and show the transition step by step please and provide evidence of the steps. I bet you find plenty of assumptions in that.

 

[rjs330]

Actually, in this case and in all of the cases where you claim there are no transitional fossils, you are very much mistaken. You are fully guilty of ignoring the evidence presented to you.

What evidence? A picture with a bunch of skulls is not evidence of anything.

 

[pitabread]

Hmm... Youre right about assumptions. I did assume. But that's kinda like the pot calling the kettle black since that's what evolution is, which is nothing but a bunch of assumptions.

So please take that picture of the skulls and show the transition step by step please and provide evidence of the steps. I bet you find plenty of assumptions in that.

Oh, I know better than to try to engage you on this, since all you'll do is respond with blanket denialism. It's a waste of time to engage on you on this. You've already made up your mind and that's perfectly fine.

I just wanted to point out that you think a chimp skull is a human. Which is what you inadvertently claimed without even realizing it, and consequently invalidates the claims you made about that series of skulls.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What evidence? A picture with a bunch of skulls is not evidence of anything.

The photo clearly shows skulls transitioning, changing, from early basal form humanoids to modern day humans.
Again, just because you choose to ignore what the photos show does not mean that the evidence goes away.

 

[rjs330]

Oh, I know better than to try to engage you on this, since all you'll do is respond with blanket denialism. It's a waste of time to engage on you on this. You've already made up your mind and that's perfectly fine.

I just wanted to point out that you think a chimp skull is a human. Which is what you inadvertently claimed without even realizing it, and consequently invalidates the claims you made about that series of skulls.

Well I obviously don't think a chimp skull is human. In fact the skulls you showed don't have any listed identifiers at all. But go ahead with your reasoning if you wish. But you know for a fact that since I am a creationist I don't believe a chimp is a human and don't have the the same ancestor. So go ahead and misrepresent a misunderstanding all you want if it make you feel better.

 

[rjs330]

The photo clearly shows skulls transitioning, changing, from early basal form humanoids to modern day humans.
Again, just because you choose to ignore what the photos show does not mean that the evidence goes away.

Clearly? It's a picture. It doesn't show anything of the sort. Please take each skull and show evidence of it's transition into the next skull and so on.

 

[pitabread]

Well I obviously don't think a chimp skull is human.

And yet you claimed just that.

In fact the skulls you showed don't have any listed identifiers at all. But go ahead with your reasoning if you wish. But you know for a fact that since I am a creationist I don't believe a chimp is a human and don't have the the same ancestor. So go ahead and misrepresent a misunderstanding all you want if it make you feel better.

Misunderstanding? Dude, you claimed a bunch of hominid skulls were "human" without even realizing one of the skulls is question is a chimp.

It speaks to the fact that any claims you make about such skulls are invalid. You can believe whatever you want, but making claims about a bunch of skulls when you don't even know what they are is just silly.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Clearly? It's a picture. It doesn't show anything of the sort. Please take each skull and show evidence of it's transition into the next skull and so on.

Again, just because you choose to ignore what the photos show does not mean that the evidence goes away.

 

[xianghua]

Clearly? It's a picture. It doesn't show anything of the sort. Please take each skull and show evidence of it's transition into the next skull and so on.

he cant since its only a skull. actually some skulls are very similar to each other but arent related at all:

(image from Thylacine - Wikipedia).

so even according to evolution similarity doesnt prove a common descent.